Dr. Mila Schwartz [email protected] Sixth Heritage Language Research Institute UCLA, June, 2012

Dr. Mila Schwartz

[email protected]

Sixth Heritage Language Research InstituteUCLA, June, 2012

mailto:[email protected]

Talk outline

Second generation Russian Jewish immigrants in

Israel: A socio-cultural background and parents’

acculturation characteristics

Talk outline

Language Policy in Israel

Talk outline

Project “'First Language F irst Approach‘ in early bilingual

education: Towards a better understanding of early sequential bilingual development “

Talk outline

Rationalization of the 'First Language First Approach’

Negotiation between teachers and parents on

challenges of the existing language model

Talk outline

Assessing the effect of the 'First Language First Approach‘ on

children's development in Russian L1 and Hebrew L2 in lexical

knowledge domain

http://www.facebook.com/SensationalKidsTherapy

Second generation Russian Jewish immigrants in Israel: A socio-cultural background and parents’ acculturation characteristics

Demographic characteristicThe last wave of Russian Jewish immigration

to Israel was massive and intensive. Over 835,000 immigrants, arrived between 1989 and 1999.


Cultural characteristicsThere is strong tendency to appreciate original

culture, which encourages Russian Jewish immigrants to maintain their language of origin

Russian Jewish immigrants have succeeded in building their own cultural framework based on Russian culture (mass media, clubs, theaters).


Political characteristics

Russian Jewish immigrants have changed the face of Israeli politics.

Russian Jewish leaders and public figures created their own political structures at both the national level and the local level (there are over 500 social and political organizations).


Main acculturation strategy

Integration, combining the maintenance of the original culture and the adaptation to the host culture (Horenczyk & Ben-Shalom, 2006).


In Israel, language is a loaded concept, closely linked to

historical, ideological, political, and social issues (Shohamy,

1994; Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999).


In recent years, there has been a more liberal policy towards

maintaining immigrants’ languages (Ministry of Education,

2008).

However, heritage languages are not a part of school curricula.

Project “'First Language First Approach‘ in early bilingual education: Towards a better understanding of early sequential

bilingual development “

An organization of Russian immigrant teachers was

established in 1992.

This organization initiated and currently runs over 25 bilingual

kindergartens and has activities in 90 schools and cultural

institutions throughout the country.



Bilingual kindergartens:

The bilingual kindergartens are private institutions

They function under the supervision of the Ministry of Education



Aim of the bilingual kindergartens' language policy:

To achieve a high level of linguistic competence, in the

heritage language, (Russian) and the majority language of the

host country (Hebrew).



Sequential onset of L2 (Hebrew) begins as the basic linguistic

structures and lexicon in L1 Russian are acquired.



Projects focuses: Language and cultural policy in the Russian-Hebrew speaking bilingual

kindergartens

Family language and cultural policy

Assessing the effect of the 'First Language First' approach on children's

development in Russian L1 and Hebrew L2

Lexical knowledge development

Grammar development: Inflectional morphology and morpho-syntax

Narrative development: Script schema knowledge

Emergent literacy acquisition

Rationalization of the ‘First Language First Approach‘

David, the general manager: Our idea of child bilingualism is the following:

Russian as a first language has to be supported in order to maintain the child’s

identity, individuality, roots…The aim of the kindergarten it to support not only the

colloquial Russian which can be learned at home from parents, but to supply

children with a “high”, literate variety of the Russian language. A kindergarten is

supposed to be not only a care-giver but an educational institution.


Need of gradual immersion in L2 Olga, the principal: First of all, we offer a gradual transition from

one language environment to the other. With small children, we communicate mostly in Russian, so they don’t have stress as they start attending kindergarten. Here they can express themselves and also have a feeling that they are understood. We introduce Hebrew gradually. From the age of three on, the input in Hebrew constantly increases…We apply scaffolding and try to prevent stress caused by confrontation with the new language for children “terrified” by Hebrew.


Need of gradual immersion in L2Olga, the principal: At the beginning, Russian was presented

at the every-day level, without being a subject of teaching…The conviction that the Russian language is important increased with the time. We stopped introducing Hebrew as soon as possible. Hebrew exists as the background until the age of three. The main language to be developed is Russian. Children just develop the awareness of the coexistence of two languages...

Rationalization of the ‘First Language First Approach‘: A source of successful L2 acquisition

Elena, the principal: Why Hebrew from age three? We thought that the child needs to advance in the home language. At age three, narrative ability appears. Language is established more or less. On the basis of one language as a foundation I can give the second language and the first one will continue to develop…

Evidence for transfer of conceptual knowledge

from L1 to L2

Aviva, Hebrew-speaking kindergarten teacher: The children are provided with instruction in Russian first, and then I can teach them more easily. To have a conversation with them when they are three and I can speak with them like they are five. This helps me…I taught them something on Sunday, but [the children] didn’t understand anything. On Monday [the other teacher] explained it again, but in Russian, with the same pictures and the same recording/video, and the same dance. On Tuesday, they already understood me…and made progress with it… and I continued in Hebrew.

Negotiation between teachers and parents on challenges of the existing language approach

Faina, David’s mother: We were worried when David (the child) was 4 years old. The year was almost over and our son barely made progress in Hebrew… The principal tried to calm us down. But I calmed down more due to the other parents whose eldest kids had finished this preschool before. They told us that after this preschool their children did very well at school. We were promised that from 4 to 5 we would observe the dramatic change and our children would speak Hebrew fluently. That proved to be true. Now our child knows fancy words in Hebrew and he feels no problem to speak Hebrew .

Negotiation between teachers and parents on

challenges of the existing language approach

Recent curriculum changes due to parental concern

Earlier input of Hebrew from its 'tasting' in the 2-3-year-old

age group during 30 minutes of structural instruction, four

times a week

Early kindergarten bilingual education and vocabulary acquisition in L1 and L2

Main Questions

Whether bilingual education with L1 maintenance promotes or

impedes children’s language development in the majority

language (L2)?

Whether bilingual education is advantageous for minority

language (L1) development?

Theoretical Background Early kindergarten bilingual education and

vocabulary acquisition in L1 and L2

Paradis (2007, 2008) proposed a maturation hypothesis, which

assumes that L1 vocabulary may facilitate the conceptual-

lexical mappings between L1 and L2.

As a result, older learners who began learning L2 after onset of

L1 acquisition (i.e., sequentially to L1) experienced accelerated

progress in their vocabulary acquisition in comparison with

younger L2 learners who had received the same exposure time.



Most focus was on bilingual development in L1 and/or L2

within bilingual school education (for review see Rolstad,

Mahoney, & Glass, 2005).

Limited research focused on children at ages 3-4 and 4-5,

(Barnett, Yarosz, Thomas, Jung & Blanco, 2007; Winsler,

Díaz, Espinosa, & Rodríguez, 1999).

Theoretical Background Early preschool bilingual education and vocabulary

acquisition in L1 and L2

Concerning L2 development, the existing limited research

supports bilingual education at ages 3-4 and 4-5 for minority-

language children from immigrant backgrounds and point

towards its efficiency in L2 development in receptive

vocabulary (Barnett et al., 2007; Kan & Kohnert, 2005;

Winsler et al., 1999).



Concerning development of L1, the results are inconclusive

(Barnett et al., 2007; Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Winsler et al.,

1999; Wong-Fillmore, 1991).



L1 and L2 were examined among children from families

with poor socioeconomic status and low parental education.

Diversity in research design (e.g., usage of parental self-

reports without appropriate experimental and control

kindergarten groups, Wong-Fillmore, 1991).

Research Design

Longitudinal design - two data collection points

Cross-sectional design - two age groups – 3- 4 and 4-5 ages

Children’s vocabulary in bilingual kindergartens was compared

with children’s vocabulary in monolingual kindergartens in L1

and L2.

Research Design

Complex approach to conceptualization and measurement of the vocabulary as a multi-component skill by distinguishing between breadth and depth of vocabulary.

Research Design

Breadth of vocabulary: How many words we know?

Depth of vocabulary: How well we know these words, or the qualitative aspects of word knowledge?

Measures

Breadth of vocabulary (receptive vocabulary)

Depth of vocabulary (paradigmatic and syntagmatic semantic relations)

Measures

Depth of the vocabulary: Paradigmatic knowledge

Paradigmatic semantic relations are related to the development

of high order cognition skills, such as conceptualization,

categorization, classification and de-contextualization of word

concepts.

Depth of the vocabulary:

Paradigmatic knowledge

flower

Superordinate

Plant

Subordinate

tulip, rose

Part-whole relations

Stem, leave

Measures

Depth of the vocabulary: Paradigmatic knowledge

Semantic fluency

Word description

Categorical identification

http://www.google.co.il/imgres?hl=iw&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=870&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=9d_VARy6IoQf4M:&imgrefurl=http://parsha.blogspot.com/2007/07/kosher-watermelon.html&docid=aEiCzQRHeLqXeM&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xWFKiPJDO_I/RqOHs4YNPPI/AAAAAAAAAMQ/7LGyjc25nyI/s400/watermelon.jpg&w=267&h=260&ei=tCNnT9a-GsrD0QWLoKCtCA&zoom=1

Categorical Identification

Measures

Depth of the vocabulary: Syntagmatic knolwedge

Syntagmatic semantic relations reflect vocabulary richness by

providing descriptive, associative and metaphoric information

about a variety of distinctive object attributes.

For example: "a watermelon is sweet and tasty and looks like a

ball"

Participants: Age 3-4

32 children, mean age 37 months

The sample was divided into two groups:

15 bilinguals from the bilingual Russian-Hebrew speaking kindergartens;

17 bilinguals from the monolingual L2 Hebrew-speaking kindergartens

Participants: Age 4-5

35 children, mean age 52 months

The sample was divided into two groups:

20 bilinguals from the bilingual Russian-Hebrew speaking kindergartens;

15 bilinguals from the monolingual L2 Hebrew-speaking kindergartens

Participants

No differences were found between the groups in the parents' acculturation patterns, parents' education, competence in Hebrew and Russian, and parent-child language practice at home.

Results: ages 3-4

Russian as L1

Significant differences were found in all domains of Russian

vocabulary between the groups.

The differences were particularly high on paradigmatic

knowledge: lack of progress of the children from the

monolingual kindergartens.

Results: Age 3-4Russian vocabulary profile (L1) in both kindergarten settings – Time 1 and Time 2

(100-point scale, *p < .05, ** p < .01)

Within effect: 0.009**

Between effect: 0.001**

Interaction: 0.009**



Interation: ns

Results : ages 3-4Hebrew as L2

The children from the BK shown similar to the children from

the MK results on the paradigmatic knowledge.

Both group of children showed significant progress on the

syntagmatic semantic relations during the educational year.

The MK group was superior on measure of vocabulary

richness.

Results: Age 3-4 Hebrew vocabulary profile (L1) in both kindergarten settings – Time 1 and Time 2

(100-point scale, *p < .05, ** p < .01)


Between effect: ns

Interaction: 0.06



Interation: ns

Peabody 3-4

within effect: 0.000**between effect: ns

interation: 0.05*

within effect: 0.000**between effect: ns

interation: 0.005**

Results: ages 4-5

Russian as L1

Paradigmatic Knowledge BK Russian- 20% development

MK Russian- showed progress of only 5% during educational

year

Syntagmatic Knowledge BK Russian – 12% development

MK Russian – 4% regression (a tendency for regression)

Results: Age 4-5Russian vocabulary profile (L1) in both preschool settings -Time 1 and Time 2

(100-point scale, *p < .05, ** p < .01)

Within effect: 0.001**Between effect: 0.001**

Interation: 0.04*

Within effect: ns Between effect: 0.001**

Interation: 0.01**

Conclusion: ages 4-5

Russian as L1

Paradigmatic Knowledge

At home this knowledge is not developed.

It seems that this knowledge develops only in the educational

setting.

Conclusion: ages 4-5

Russian as L1

Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Knowledge

Linguistic development is more intensive in bi-lingual

kindergartens. In other words, if you are bi-lingual it's

preferable to be in a kindergarten that develops both languages.

Results : ages 4-5Hebrew as L2

Paradigmatic Knowledge BK Hebrew- More accelerated development than

MK (20% vs. 8%)

Syntagmatic Knowledge BK group shown 20% of development in the

syntagmatic knowledge versus some regression in the MK group.

Results: Age 4-5Hebrew vocabulary profile (L1) in both preschool settings – Time 1 and Time 2

(100-point scale, *p < .05, ** p < .01)

Within effect: 0.001**Between effect: 0.003**Interation: ns

Within effect: 0.05*

Between effect: 0.03*

Interation: ns

Discussion: First language – Russian

Monolingual education

Russian-speaking home environment did not serve as a buffer

in particular against delay in paradigmatic knowledge tapping

high order cognition skills development in L1 when children

were early immersed in L2 monolingual kindergarten.

Discussion: First language – Russian

Monolingual education

The parents efforts in L1 maintenance at home hardly to be

expected to develop into academic knowledge (Snow, Cancino,

De Temple, & Schley, 1991) or into cognitive academic

language proficiency (Cummins, 1979b).

Discussion: Second language – Hebrew

Bilingual education

Later immersion in L2 and continuing development of L1

within a bilingual educational context, not only does not

impede vocabulary development in the L2, but can even

accelerate the development in L2.


Bilingual education

The acceleration was found in the development of depth of

vocabulary, paradigmatic and syntagmatic knowledge in L2.

Concerning paradigmatic knowledge, this progress might be

attributed to conceptual-lexical mappings between L1 and L2.


Bilingual education

First Language First Approach in bilingual education creates a

solid ground for lexical growth in both L1 and L2.

Evidence for maturation hypothesis (Paradis, 2007, 2008).

Further research directions

Evaluation of the prolonged effect of early bilingual education

on language competence, cognitive development, cultural and national identity, and social adjustment of second-generation immigrants from the former Soviet Union.

Further research directions

Focus on input of grammar in Hebrew (L2) proved by

preschool teacher for early sequential bilinguals in bilingual

versus monolingual kindergartens

Большое спасибо!!תודה רבה

Thank you very much!

Dr. Victor MoinDr. Janina Kahn-Horwitz

Noya MeitalMiriam Minkov

Documents

Dr. Mila Schwartz [email protected] Sixth Heritage Language Research Institute UCLA, June, 2012